Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

2006, Vol. 37, No. 1, 51–58 0735-7028/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51

Perceptions of the Validity and Utility of Criminal Profiling Among

Forensic Psychologists and Psychiatrists
Angela N. Torres, Marcus T. Boccaccini, and Holly A. Miller
Sam Houston State University

Criminal profiling is the process of using crime scene evidence to make inferences about potential
suspects, including personality characteristics and psychopathology. An exploratory Internet survey of
forensic psychologists and psychiatrists was conducted to examine their experiences with and opinions
about profiling and to determine whether referring to profiling as “criminal investigative analysis” had
any impact on these opinions. About 10% of the 161 survey respondents had profiling experience,
although more than 25% considered themselves knowledgeable about profiling. Fewer than 25% believed
that profiling was scientifically reliable or valid, and approximately 40% felt that criminal investigative
analysis was scientifically reliable or valid. Although the scientific aspects of profiling lacked support,
respondents viewed profiling as useful for law enforcement and supported profiling research.

Keywords: profiling, criminal investigative analysis, general acceptance, admissibility, forensic

The image of a criminal profiler sorting through crime scene
evidence and definitively identifying a guilty suspect is popular in
novels, television shows, and movies. However, this popular im-
age is more fiction than fact, and the process and limits of real
profiling work are often misunderstood. Criminal profiling is the
process of using behavioral evidence left at a crime scene to make
inferences about the offender, including inferences about person-
ality characteristics and psychopathology. In its most basic form,
profiling is simply the postdiction of behavior; an action has taken
place that allows investigators to make inferences about the person
responsible (Davis & Follette, 2002). Despite popular images of
criminal profiling, the main goal of profiling in real investigations
is to narrow the scope of a suspect pool rather than to identify a
single guilty criminal (Douglas & Olshaker, 1995).
Background
Mental Health Practitioners and Criminal Profiling
Psychiatrists and psychologists made significant contributions
to the early development of criminal profiling. The profiles created
ANGELA N. TORRES is currently a student in the clinical psychology PhD
program at Sam Houston State University. Her areas of interest in research
include criminal profiling; sexual offenders; eating disorders; body image;
female offenders; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues; and advocacy.
MARCUS T. BOCCACCINI received his PhD in clinical psychology from The
University of Alabama. He is an assistant professor in the Department of
Psychology at Sam Houston State University and conducts research in the
areas of witness preparation, expert testimony, and psychological assess-
ment practices.
HOLLY A. MILLER received her PhD in clinical psychology from Florida State
University. She is an associate professor in the College of Criminal Justice at
Sam Houston State University. She teaches, consults, and conducts research in
the areas of malingered psychopathology, assessment and treatment of offend-
ers, psychopathy, and law enforcement training, assessment, and evaluation.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Marcus
T. Boccaccini, Psychology Department, Box 2447, Sam Houston State
University, Huntsville, TX 77341. E-mail: boccaccini@shsu.edu
51
by these practitioners were based largely on clinical judgment and
prevailing theories of personality and psychopathology. For exam-
ple, many early profiles from mental health practitioners were
rooted heavily in psychoanalysis (Grubin, 1995). These profiles
focused on the probable interpersonal functioning and psychopa-
thology of the person responsible for committing the crime (Wil-
son, Lincoln, & Kocsis, 1997). Psychiatrist William Langer devel-
oped one of the most famous early profiles— a profile of Adolf
Hitler for the U.S. Office of Strategic Service during World War II
(Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990). Langer’s psychiatric approach led to
a profile of Hitler’s personality and mental disorder as well as to
Langer’s prediction of suicide as Hitler’s response to defeat (Pin-
izzotto, 1984). The most lauded and cited example of early pro-
filing comes from the work of another psychiatrist. In 1956, David
Brussel constructed a profile of New York’s “Mad Bomber” that
was accurate in many details (see Weinerman, 2004a).
Although some criminal profiling work is done by mental health
professionals (e.g., psychologists and psychiatrists), most of it is
done by trained law enforcement agents. It is difficult to get a clear
estimate of how many mental health professionals are involved in
profiling. The best data come from a survey of 152 police psy-
chologists, who reported spending approximately 3% of their time
profiling offenders (Bartol, 1996). However, Bartol did not report
a standard deviation value for this finding, making it impossible to
infer whether most psychologists spent 3% of their time conduct-
ing profiles or whether a few professionals spent a large proportion
of their time conducting profiles while others avoided this work
completely. Although Bartol’s published survey results cannot
help researchers determine the number of respondents who did and
did not participate in profiling, Bartol did find that 70% of the
police psychologists “seriously” questioned the validity of profil-
ing work (p. 79). This combination of findings from the Bartol
study suggests that many respondents were not actively involved
in generating profiles. It is possible, but unlikely, that the same
psychologists who expressed negative views about profiling were
actually participating in a significant amount of profiling-related
52 TORRES, BOCCACCINI, AND MILLER
activities. The applicability of Bartol’s findings to other groups of
mental health professionals is not clear. Larger groups of profes-
sionals have not been surveyed about their participation in profil-
ing work.
The pattern suggested by the Bartol (1996) survey—that is, that
a small number of psychologists participate in profiling work and
the vast majority avoid it because of concerns about validity—fits
well with our perception of the relationship between psychology
and criminal profiling during the past 20 years. However, this
pattern may be changing. A recent issue of the American Psycho-
logical Association’s (APA) monthly professional magazine, Mon-
itor on Psychology, highlighted the role of psychology and psy-
chologists in criminal profiling (Weinerman, 2004a, 2004b).
Several psychologists who are active in profiling work were in-
terviewed, and, although the articles clearly acknowledged that
many concerns about the scientific validity of profiling still exist,
the reader is left with the impression that interest in profiling work
by psychologists is on the rise. This trend is also evident in the
recent publication of profiling research by psychologists (e.g.,
Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004; Canter & Wentink,
2004; Kocsis, 2004; Salfati, 2003; Salfati & Canter, 1999) and
coverage of profiling in recent editions of psychology–law text-
books (Bartol & Bartol, 2004; Constanzo, 2004; Wrightsman &
Fulero, 2005), suggesting that professional interest and practice in
this area also may be on the rise. Indeed, the use of psychological
profiles in criminal investigations has been described as “burgeon-
ing” (Kocsis & Hayes, 2004, p. 149).
Profiling Research
When reviewing profiling research, one must recognize that
multiple approaches to profiling exist, each with different under-
lying theories, methods, and assumptions (see Homant &
Kennedy, 1998, for a concise overview; see also Turvey, 2002).
Most profiling studies examine the scientific merit of aspects of
these specific approaches as opposed to the profiling process in
general. These studies can be thought of as examinations of con-
struct validity in that they gauge support for the theories and
concepts underlying various components of profiling approaches.
For example, one focus of recent profiling research has been the
validity of the offender typologies underlying some profiling ap-
proaches. For instance, in several studies Canter and colleagues
coded information from police files and found limited support for
typologies sometimes used to classify serial killers, such as the
classification of crime scenes as organized or disorganized and use
of the Holmes and Holmes system that includes visionary, mission,
hedonistic, and power or control killers (see Canter et al., 2004;
Canter & Wentink, 2004). These findings raise serious questions
about the validity of approaches that rely on these types of dis-
tinctions for generating profiles. However, researchers also have
used data from real cases to develop more empirically supported
typologies of murderers and rapists (Canter, Bennell, Alison, &
Reddy, 2003; Salfati, 2003; Salfati & Canter, 1999; see also
Kocsis, Cooksey, & Irwin, 2002). Future research in this area
clearly is needed to determine whether psychologists can use these
typologies to accurately classify offenders in future cases and to
provide useful information for investigators.
A second line of profiling research has focused on the reliability
and accuracy (criterion validity) of professional profilers. Formal
examinations of the reliability of profiling are limited to a study of
six Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) profilers’ agreement in
classifying crime scenes as organized, disorganized, mixed, or
unknown (Ressler & Burgess, 1985, as reported in Homant &
Kennedy, 1998). The identification of a crime scene as organized
or disorganized has important implications in some profiling ap-
proaches. Agreement among the agents in classifying crime scenes
in 64 cases was reported to be 74%. The researchers concluded that
the overall level of agreement found in the study indicated ade-
quate reliability; however, there was notable variation in the ac-
curacy of the agents. For instance, the classification accuracy of
one rater was only 51.7%.
Several studies have examined the accuracy of profiles gener-
ated by professional profilers. The general design used in these
studies has been to compare profiles generated by profilers with
those generated by nonprofilers (e.g., students, psychologists, po-
lice detectives). One important limitation of this research was that
most of these studies used fewer than five profilers because the
researchers had difficulty finding profilers willing to participate in
the research (see Kocsis, 2004; Pinnizzotto & Finkel, 1990). Nev-
ertheless, the existing studies in this area seem to converge in
finding that trained profilers write longer and more detailed reports
that contain more information and predictions about the offender
(Kocsis, 2003b; Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990).
Existing accuracy studies also provide some support for profil-
ers making predictions that are more accurate than those of non-
profilers, although results are somewhat mixed and are based on a
small number of profilers and studies (see Kocsis, 2003a, for a
review). For example, Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) examined the
profiles generated by four current or former FBI profilers, six
police detectives with profiling training, six police detectives with
no profiling training, six clinical psychologists with no profiling
training, and six undergraduate students with no profiling training.
Each participant generated profiles for one murder case and one
arson case on the basis of actual police investigation materials
from the two cases. Participants also answered 15 multiple-choice
questions about the suspect, including age, race, occupation, the
relationship between the victim and the offender, and the likeli-
hood that the offender had committed similar crimes in the past.
Researchers knew the correct response to each question. In the
profiling of the murder case, all the participants performed better
than chance, with the average number of correct responses for each
group ranging from 5.3 (35%) to 7.0 (47%); however, no signif-
icant differences were observed between the groups of partici-
pants. Thus, the accuracy of the professional profilers was similar
to that of untrained psychologists and students. In the profiling of
the sexual assault case, the 10 profilers performed significantly
better than the other three groups of participants. Again, all groups
performed at an above-chance rate, but the average number of
correct responses for profilers was 10.0 out of 15.0 (67%), com-
pared with correct response averages ranging from 5.5 (37%) to
8.5 (57%) for the other three groups.
Kocsis (2003a) summarized the results of three studies con-
ducted by his research team comparing the accuracy of profes-
sional profilers (N ⫽ 11, across studies), psychologists, self-
identified psychics, college students, and various groups of law
enforcement officers. In each study, participants reviewed crime
descriptions and case materials from actual solved cases (i.e.,
murder, arson) and completed multiple-choice questionnaires
 CRIMINAL PROFILING
about the suspect. Across these studies, the profilers provided the
largest number of correct predictions about the actual perpetrators,
with accuracy rates ranging from 46% (Kocsis, Irwin, Hayes, &
Nunn, 2000) to 70% (Kocsis, 2004). However, Kocsis (2003b)
cautioned that a notable amount of variability was observed within
the profiler group, indicating that some profilers were much more
accurate than others. It is unclear whether this variation was due to
overall differences in the profilers’ skills or to specific aspects of
the cases.
Profiling Admissibility in Court
When profiles are created, both the prosecution and the defense
may attempt to have the profiler testify as an expert witness.
Profiling evidence has been admitted and denied admission into
court. Many professionals who engage in profiling work believe
that profiling testimony is more likely to be admitted into court
when it is called something other than profiling (Cooley & Turvey,
2002; Risinger & Loop, 2002). For example, in United States v.
Meeks (1992), testimony that was based on motivational analy-
sis—the name sometimes used by the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation (FBI) for profiling—was admitted because it was found to
be a generally accepted investigative technique that is based on
specialized knowledge (Cooley & Turvey, 2002). Profiling also
has been referred to as behavioral evidence analysis, linkage
analysis, signature analysis, and investigative analysis. The FBI,
which originally coined the term profiling, now uses criminal
investigative analysis to refer to its profiling work (Turvey, 2002).
Although motivational analysis testimony was allowed in
United States v. Meeks (1992) because it was found to be a
generally accepted investigative tool, profiling testimony has been
found inadmissible because it was not perceived as being generally
accepted (see Grezlak, 1999). A defense attorney in one case in
which a psychologist’s profiling testimony was barred from being
entered into evidence openly referred to profiling as “voodoo”
(Grezlak, 1999, p. 3).
One likely reason for the discrepant decisions concerning the
admissibility of profiling testimony is that there is little documen-
tation one way or the other about whether profiling, regardless of
what it is called, is a generally accepted investigative technique.
Just as perceptions of profiling are often based on lore, so are
opinions about its acceptance. The general acceptance of profiling
has not been systematically examined among mental health pro-
fessionals, and arguments that support the acceptance of profiling
in the law enforcement community typically are based on the
rationale that profiling must be accepted if it continues to be used
(see Kocsis & Hayes, 2004).
In all states and federal jurisdictions, general acceptance is a
criterion that judges consider when making decisions about the
admissibility of expert testimony. General acceptance in the field
is the main criterion on which decisions are to be based in states
relying on the Frye (Frye v. United States, 1923) standard for
determining the admissibility of expert testimony. In Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court ruled
that the Federal Rules of Evidence, and not the Frye v. United
States standard, should be used for determining the admissibility of
expert testimony in federal courts. Many states have since adopted
Daubert-like standards for admitting expert testimony.
53
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) departs from
Frye v. United States (1923) by asking judges to consider the
scientific merit of the theories, procedures, and research on which
potential experts will base their testimony. The Supreme Court
noted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that general
acceptance is one criterion that can be used for evaluating scien-
tific merit but also recommended that judges consider other
sources of evidence, including whether the theory or technique on
which the testimony is based has been subjected to peer review,
whether that theory or technique can be falsified, and whether it
has a known and acceptable error rate. Under Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, any theory or procedure upon which ex-
perts rely should be based on a falsifiable theory that has been
tested, be subjected to peer review, be published, have a known
error rate, and be generally accepted in the field (Goodman-
Delahunty, 1997).
Survey Results as Evidence for General Acceptance
Error rates of profiling methods, the falsifiability of profiling
theories, and the peer review status of profiling theories and
methods, are, for the most part, objective criteria that can be
identified at any point in time through the current scholarly liter-
ature. Although arguments concerning the general acceptance of
profiling work can be informed by findings from existing empir-
ical research, general acceptance can be examined directly by
surveying the opinions of those in the relevant profession or field.
For example, researchers have used surveys to systematically
examine general acceptance within the psychology field of the
validity of polygraph testing (Honts & Quick, 1995; Iacono &
Lykken, 1997) and factors influencing the accuracy of eyewitness
memory (Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989; Kassin, Tubb, Hosch,
& Memon, 2001).
The purpose of the current study is to use a survey approach to
explore perceptions of the validity and utility of criminal profiling
among forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. This study also
seeks to provide information about the proportion of mental health
professionals in these fields who are active in profiling work, to
explore similarities and differences in opinions about profiling
from forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, and to examine
whether changing the term criminal profiling to criminal investi-
gative analysis has an impact on perceptions of its acceptance and
validity.
Exploratory Profiling and Criminal Investigative
Analysis Survey
Identifying Appropriate Mental Health Professionals
Because there is no professional society or organization dedi-
cated to mental health professionals involved in profiling work, we
asked members of professional organizations with a more general
focus on mental health and law issues to complete an Internet
survey about the scientific merit and utility of profiling. These
organizations were Division 41 (American Psychology–Law So-
ciety [AP-LS]) of the APA, the American Academy of Forensic
Psychology (AAFP), the American Academy of Psychiatry and
Law (AAPL), and the Police and Public Safety section in APA
Division 18, Psychologists in Public Service. AP-LS member
54 TORRES, BOCCACCINI, AND MILLER
e-mail addresses were obtained from the list of attendees posted on
the 2004 AP-LS conference Web site. We cross-checked names
from the AP-LS Web site with the APA membership directory to
ensure that those asked to participate were psychologists, as op-
posed to graduate students, attorneys, or other affiliate members.
We e-mailed AAFP members directly, using addresses available
through the organization’s Web site. The presidents of AAPL and
of the Police and Public Safety section of APA Division 18
requested that we first send e-mails soliciting participation to them,
which they would then forward to their respective members.
E-mails soliciting participation were distributed to 1,637 foren-
sic mental health professionals: 175 AP-LS members, 147 AAFP
members, 840 AAPL members, and 475 members of the Police
and Public Safety section of APA Division 18. Only 9.9% (N ⫽
161) of those who received an e-mail solicitation completed the
study. Although this response rate was admittedly lower than we
had hoped for and clearly places limits on the applicability of the
findings to forensic mental professionals as a whole, the completed
surveys provide information about the perceptions of profiling by
a sizable group of forensic mental health professionals (N ⫽ 161).
Moreover, a low response rate was anticipated for several reasons.
Few practitioners in these four organizations were expected to be
active in profiling, and many were expected to avoid answering
questions about profiling because they felt it was outside the scope
of their field. Although the Internet can be a cost-effective method
for collecting survey data, response rates for Internet surveys are
often markedly lower (ranging from 7% to 44%) than those for
mail and telephone surveys (Schonlau, Fricker, & Elliot, 2002). In
addition, response rates for Internet surveys of academic and
professional groups tend to be lower than those of other groups
(Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). The expected low response
rate was the main reason for soliciting participation from such a
large group of forensic mental health professionals (N ⫽ 1,637).
Although the survey data reported in this article provide infor-
mation about the practices and beliefs of 161 forensic mental
health professionals, the low response rate raises legitimate ques-
tions about whether the sample is representative and, thus, whether
the findings can be generalized to forensic mental health profes-
sionals as a whole. The low response rate also suggests that it is
unlikely that respondents were able to accurately express the
amount of variation in beliefs and practices that is present among
forensic mental health professionals as a whole. It may be that
those who responded were strong proponents or advocates of
profiling and that the survey findings represent either an overly
positive or an overly negative view of profiling. For this reason,
we strongly caution readers against interpreting the findings re-
ported here as clear evidence either for or against the acceptance of
profiling in the field. We consider this study to be an early
exploratory step in moving the fields of psychology and psychiatry
toward a more empirically based understanding of the acceptance
or nonacceptance of profiling. Readers must interpret the survey
findings with this important limitation in mind.
Of the responding forensic mental health professionals, 44.7%
(n ⫽ 72) reported AP-LS membership, 19.3% (n ⫽ 31) reported
AAFP membership, 44.1% (n ⫽ 71) reported AAPL membership,
and 8.1% (n ⫽ 13) reported Police and Public Safety section
membership. Many participants reported membership in multiple
organizations. With respect to profession, 50.9% (n ⫽ 82) identi-
fied themselves as psychologists, 43.5% (n ⫽ 70) identified them-
selves as psychiatrists, 3.1% (n ⫽ 5) reported having a doctorate in
medicine and a doctorate in philosophy, and 2.5% (n ⫽ 4) did not
provide information about their profession.
Survey Format and Questions
A major goal of this study was to examine whether perceptions
of the validity, utility, and acceptance of profiling methods varied
depending on whether these methods were described as “profiling”
or “criminal investigative analysis.” Two versions of the study
survey were created that were identical in all aspects except one:
one version used the term profiling in the instructions to partici-
pants and in the study questions, whereas the other version used
criminal investigative analysis. The latter is the term currently
used by the FBI to refer to profiling. The definition of profiling
provided to mental health professionals was “Profiling is the
process of using physical and behavioral evidence available at a
crime scene to make inferences about the personality characteris-
tics of the individual(s) responsible for committing the criminal
act.” In the alternate version of the survey, criminal investigative
analysis was substituted for profiling, but the definitions were
otherwise identical.
The first five survey questions asked participants to provide yes
or no responses to questions about their training, knowledge, and
experience with profiling methods or criminal investigative anal-
ysis (see Table 1). The second five questions asked participants to
provide yes or no responses to questions about the scientific and
professional status of profiling or criminal investigative analysis
(see Table 2).
The final five questions assessed respondents’ knowledge of
standards used for admitting expert testimony into court, including
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), Frye v. United
States (1923), and the Federal Rules of Evidence.1 Each item was
scored as correct or incorrect. We totaled the scores on the five
items to form an admissibility knowledge composite score, which
we found to have acceptable internal consistency (Kuder–
Richardson 20 ⫽ .72).
For each professional organization, mental health practitioners
with last names beginning with A–M were directed to one version
of the survey, and those with last names beginning with N–Z were
directed to the other version. The order was counterbalanced for
the different organizations. For two organizations, those with
names beginning with A–M were directed to the profiling survey.
For the other two organizations, those with names beginning with
A–M were directed to the criminal investigative analysis survey.
Experiences and Attitudes of Psychologists and
Psychiatrists
Preliminary analyses revealed only one significant difference
between psychologists and psychiatrists on the 10 main survey
questions concerning training, knowledge, experience, and atti-
tudes about profiling. This one effect revealed that psychiatrists
were somewhat more likely to say that profiling was a useful tool
for law enforcement (95.4%) than were psychologists (84.9%), ␹2
1
A copy of the five-item questionnaire assessing knowledge of admis-
sibility standards is available from Marcus T. Boccaccini.
 CRIMINAL PROFILING 55

Table 1
Percentage of Surveyed Forensic Mental Health Professionals With Profiling Knowledge,
Training, and Experience

Procedure

Profiling CIA
Survey item (n ⫽ 92) (n ⫽ 69)

Do you consider yourself knowledgeable about the field of ? 31.5% 26.1%

Do you have any training in ? 16.3% 20.3%
Have you ever generated a for an investigation? 10.9% 10.1%
Have you ever testified in court about a ? 9.8% 10.1%
Have you ever been asked about your opinion of in court? 10.9% 13.0%

Note. CIA ⫽ criminal investigative analysis. Percentage values in this table reflect the proportion of “yes”
responses to survey items. All differences between profiling and CIA failed to reach statistical and clinical
significance, p ⬎ .05, phi coefficients (␾) ⬍ .06.

(1, N ⫽ 172) ⫽ 4.12, p ⬍ .05, ␾ ⫽ .17. Although this difference
is large enough to reach statistical significance, the majority of
respondents from both professions felt that profiling was a useful
tool for law enforcement. Because the overall pattern of findings
across the 10 main survey questions was similar for psychologists
and psychiatrists, findings are reported below for the entire sample
of forensic mental health professionals.
Training, Knowledge, and Experience With Profiling
Table 1 provides information concerning the proportion of fo-
rensic mental health professionals who reported having training,
knowledge, and experience with profiling and criminal investiga-
tive analysis. A similar pattern of findings was observed for
participants responding to questions about profiling and criminal
investigative analysis. Although a sizable minority of forensic
mental health professionals reported having knowledge of profil-
ing and criminal investigative analysis (31.5% and 26.1%, respec-
tively) and training in these techniques (16.3% and 20.3%, respec-
tively), only about 10% reported ever having generated a profile or
criminal investigative analysis for an actual case. Similarly, only
about 10% reported having testified in court about their use of
these techniques or their opinion of these techniques in general.
Attitudes About Profiling and Criminal Investigative
Analysis
Forensic mental health professionals’ attitudes about the scien-
tific merit and utility of profiling and criminal investigative anal-
ysis are reported in Table 2. Fewer than half of the forensic mental
health professionals felt that either profiling or criminal investiga-
tive analysis was reliable, was valid, or had enough scientific
support to be admitted into court. Perceptions were especially
negative among those who received the version of the survey using
the term profiling. These forensic mental health professionals rated
profiling to be significantly less reliable and valid than those who
were given the term criminal investigative analysis for the same
process. These findings support the position that profiling is likely
to be viewed more favorably if it is referred to by another name.
Recall that the definitions provided for profiling and criminal
investigative analysis were identical. Only the name of the process
varied.
Although forensic mental health professionals questioned the
scientific merit of profiling and criminal investigative analysis,
there was general agreement that these techniques were useful
tools for law enforcement. In addition, nearly all forensic mental

Table 2
Percentage of Surveyed Forensic Mental Health Professionals Who Identified Profiling and Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA) as
Being Valid and Useful

Procedure

Profiling CIA
Survey item (n ⫽ 92) (n ⫽ 68) ␹2(1, N ⫽ 160) ␾

Is scientifically valid for linking a defendant to a crime? 23.0% 43.3% 6.84* .22
Is scientifically reliable? 17.1% 40.0% 9.69** .26
Do you think that is scientifically supported enough to be admitted into court under 27.0% 31.1% 0.31 .05
any circumstances?
Do you think that is a useful tool for law enforcement? 86.4% 95.1% 3.03 .14
Do you think that should be researched empirically? 97.8% 96.9% 0.10 ⫺.02

Note. Percentage values in this table reflect the proportion of “yes” responses to survey items. ␾ ⫽ phi, effect size for ␹2 analyses that can be interpreted
as a correlation coefficient. In this table, ␾ provides an index of the strength of the association between the label given to the profiling process and positive
perceptions of scientific merit and utility. Larger positive values of ␾ indicate more positive evaluations for CIA as opposed to those evaluations for
profiling.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
56 TORRES, BOCCACCINI, AND MILLER
health professionals felt that profiling and criminal investigative
analysis should be the focus of empirical research.
Because many forensic mental health professionals reported that
they did not consider themselves knowledgeable about profiling
and criminal investigative analysis, it can be argued that only the
perceptions of those who are knowledgeable should be considered
for gauging general acceptance. To address this concern, we com-
pared beliefs about the validity, reliability, and scientific support
for profiling and criminal investigative analysis for those who did
and did not consider themselves knowledgeable about these meth-
ods. Small cell sizes precluded separate analyses for profiling and
criminal investigative analysis. No significant differences between
those with and without knowledge were revealed, with effect sizes
(␾) ranging from .01 to .05. For the 47 forensic mental health
practitioners who reported being knowledgeable about profiling or
criminal investigative analysis, 27.7% (n ⫽ 13) felt that these
procedures were scientifically valid, 25.5% (n ⫽ 12) felt that they
were reliable, and 25.5% (n ⫽ 12) felt that they had adequate
scientific support for being admitted into court.
Admissibility Knowledge
Knowledge about standards for admitting expert testimony into
evidence was assessed to examine whether those with higher levels
of admissibility knowledge were more likely to see profiling and
criminal investigative analysis as lacking adequate scientific merit.
The average number of correct responses to the admissibility
questions across the 158 mental health professionals who com-
pleted all five questions was 3.65 (SD ⫽ 1.48). Psychologists (n ⫽
80, M ⫽ 3.99, SD ⫽ 1.35) exhibited significantly more knowledge
about admissibility standards on the five-question scale than psy-
chiatrists did (n ⫽ 69, M ⫽ 3.26, SD ⫽ 1.46), t(147) ⫽ 3.15, p ⬍
.02, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.52.
A scientific merit composite score was created by totaling the
“yes” responses to the survey questions about the reliability, va-
lidity, and scientific support for profiling (see Table 1). Scores on
this composite could range from 1 to 3, with high scores reflecting
positive attitudes about the scientific merit of profiling. These
scores were then correlated with scores on the admissibility knowl-
edge scale using Spearman rank-order correlations (rs). Among
forensic mental health professionals as a whole, admissibility
knowledge was negatively related to beliefs about the scientific
merit of profiling and criminal investigative analysis, rs ⫽ ⫺.16,
p ⬍ .05. Those with higher levels of admissibility knowledge
tended to view profiling as having less scientific merit. However,
further examination revealed that this trend was almost completely
accounted for by psychologists (rs ⫽ ⫺.26, p ⬍ .05). Admissibility
knowledge and beliefs about the scientific merit of profiling were
not significantly correlated for psychiatrists, rs ⫽ ⫺.03, p ⬎ .05.
Implications for Practice
The purpose of conducting this exploratory survey was to pro-
vide an estimate of the acceptance of profiling among forensic
mental health professionals. Although the low response rate nec-
essarily limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn
from the survey findings, this survey should be considered an early
step in moving the field toward a more empirically based under-
standing of the acceptance of profiling.
Mental Health Professionals’ Involvement in Profiling
Few forensic mental health professionals responding to the
survey had ever conducted a profile or criminal investigative
analysis, yet a somewhat larger minority considered themselves
knowledgeable about these techniques. Why would those who
claim to be knowledgeable about profiling not conduct profiles?
Three possible interpretations for this pattern of findings are of-
fered here: (a) one that argues against mental health professionals’
involvement in the practice of profiling, (b) one that is more
positive about involvement in profiling, and (c) one that is open
minded about involvement in profiling.
The first interpretation is that the knowledge possessed by some
respondents suggests to them that profiling lacks scientific merit.
Support for this interpretation is provided by the finding that both
profiling and criminal investigative analysis were seen as lacking
adequate reliability, validity, and scientific support by more than
half of all respondents. This pattern of findings was similar for
those who did and did not consider themselves knowledgeable
about profiling, suggesting that many with knowledge about pro-
filing felt that profiling and criminal investigative analysis lacked
scientific merit. This perspective may be especially common
among psychologists who are active practitioners and who are
knowledgeable about standards for admitting expert testimony into
court. Psychologists who said that they were more knowledgeable
about admissibility standards tended to have the most negative
views about the scientific merit of profiling and criminal investi-
gative analysis.
The second, more positive interpretation is that some forensic
mental health professionals have become familiar with profiling
methods or research (or both) because they have been asked about
profiling by attorneys, journalists, or students. Some of these
forensic mental health professionals may be willing to undertake
profiling work but have never been hired to do so.
The third and more open-minded interpretation is that some
forensic mental health professionals are keeping a watchful eye on
developments in profiling but are not yet comfortable practicing in
this area. During the past 5 years, many of the top peer-reviewed
psychology–law journals have published articles concerning pro-
filing. These journals include Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
(Alison, West, & Goodwill, 2004; Canter et al., 2004), Law and
Human Behavior (Davis & Follette, 2002; Wells, 2003), Behav-
ioral Sciences and the Law (Canter et al., 2003; Salfati & Canter,
1999; Snook, Canter, & Bennell, 2002), and Criminal Justice and
Behavior (Canter & Wentink, 2004; Kocsis, 2004). Those involved
in forensic practice or research may have seen these articles or
been given information about the latest developments in profiling
through continuing education outlets. This interpretation also is
supported by the finding that nearly all forensic mental health
practitioners believed that profiling was worthy of scientific study.
Many respondents who questioned the scientific merit of profiling
still believed that more research should be conducted.
These three interpretations are not mutually exclusive. All or
none of these rationales may apply to a single forensic mental
health professional who is knowledgeable about profiling but is
not involved in profiling work. Those individuals who are consid-
ering becoming involved in profiling work should be aware that
some forensic mental health professionals who are knowledgeable
about profiling avoid working in this area. At this point in time,
 CRIMINAL PROFILING
profiling does not appear to be generally accepted among forensic
mental health professionals as a valid and scientifically supported
technique. Whether research advancements in this area will even-
tually improve the opinions of profiling among mental health
practitioners is not clear. The finding from the current study that
approximately 70% of mental health practitioners believed that
profiling or criminal investigative analysis was not a valid tech-
nique is nearly identical to Bartol’s (1996) finding from nearly 10
years ago that 70% of police psychologists “seriously questioned”
the validity of profiling (p. 79).
However, findings from the current study do suggest that some
forensic mental health professionals harbor negative views about
the term profiling rather than, or in addition to, the profiling
process. Survey participants who were asked to express their
opinions about criminal investigative analysis (another name for
profiling), expressed much more positive views. On the basis of
this finding, we recommend that those individuals who are asked
to comment on or testify about profiling think carefully about the
basis for their opinion of profiling before making any statements.
Beliefs about the validity of profiling should be based on existing
evidence rather than on negative attitudes about the term profiling.
Many of the recent scholarly articles addressing the current status
of profiling research are cited in this article. We encourage those
individuals who are asked to comment or testify about profiling to
become familiar with this growing body of research literature.
Limitations and Conclusions
Although findings from the current study show that many fo-
rensic mental health professionals have concerns about the scien-
tific merit of profiling, these findings alone are insufficient for
arguing that profiling evidence should not be admitted into court.
Views about the acceptance of profiling as a valid technique may
be higher among other professionals who do profiling work, in-
cluding law enforcement agents and criminal justice experts. In
addition, most participants felt that profiling was a useful tool for
law enforcement, suggesting that they believe someone should be
doing this work.
The seemingly counterintuitive pattern of respondents reporting
insufficient evidence for the validity of profiling but endorsing its
use for law enforcement potentially could be explained in multiple
ways. The most likely explanation is that these forensic mental
health professionals think about profiling in a similar way to that
of professionals in the law enforcement community by reasoning
that profiling must be at least somewhat useful if it continues to be
used (see Kocsis & Hayes, 2004). Indeed, it is possible that these
forensic mental health professionals have seen, or have at least
heard of, the process being effective for law enforcement and are
willing to admit that it may be useful in some cases. A second
explanation is that respondents may have believed that more
information about the scientific merit of profiling is needed before
they are willing to assert that it is not at all useful and should be
discontinued. In other words, given the small amount of profiling
research available, they may have believed that the existing evi-
dence against profiling is not strong enough to argue that it should
never be used. A third explanation is that the respondents to the
survey represent a biased sample of forensic mental health profes-
sionals. It may be that a large portion of the responding sample was
made up of individuals who have some interest or training in
57
profiling, and, thus, they were likely to view its use within law
enforcement as important. However, this explanation seems less
plausible given that the overwhelming majority of the respondents
viewed profiling as invalid and unreliable and did not rate profiling
positively, overall.
One final limitation of this survey is that participants were
provided with a general description of profiling. There are many
different approaches to profiling, with different underlying theo-
ries, methods, and assumptions. For those knowledgeable about
profiling, responses may have varied if we had asked about a
specific approach. Major approaches to profiling include the FBI’s
criminal investigative analysis (Douglas & Burgess, 1986), behav-
ioral evidence analysis (Turvey, 2002), investigative psychology
(Canter, 1995), and geographic profiling (Rossmo, 1999). It may
be that support for some of these approaches is stronger than
others, and future studies may seek to examine support for differ-
ent profiling approaches.
References
Alison, L., West, A., & Goodwill, A. (2004). The academic and the
practitioner: Pragmatists’ views of offender profiling. Psychology, Pub-
lic Policy, and Law, 10, 71–101.
Bartol, C. R. (1996). Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 23, 70 – 89.
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2004). Psychology and law (3rd ed.).
Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
Canter, D. (1995). Criminal shadows: Inside the mind of the serial killer.
London: HarperCollins.
Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004). The
organized/disorganized typology of serial murder: Myth or model? Psy-
chology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 293–320.
Canter, D. V., Bennell, C., Alison, L., & Reddy, S. (2003). Differentiating
sex offenses: A behaviorally based thematic classification of stranger
rapes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 157–174.
Canter, D. V., & Wentink, N. (2004). An empirical test of Holmes and
Holmes’s serial murder typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31,
489 –515.
Constanzo, M. (2004). Psychology applied to law. Wadsworth: Belmont,
CA.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of
response rates in web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 60, 821– 836.
Cooley, C. M., & Turvey, B. E. (2002, June). Reliability and validity:
Admissibility standards relative to forensic experts illustrated by crim-
inal profiling evidence, testimony, and judicial rulings. Journal of Be-
havioral Profiling, 3(1). Retrieved August 12, 2002, from http://www
.profiling.org/journal/index.html
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Rethinking the probative value of
evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling, and the “postdiction” of behav-
ior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 133–158.
Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986, December). Criminal profiling: A
viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 55(12), 9 –13.
Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mind hunter: Inside the FBI’s elite
serial crime unit. New York: Mindhunters.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1997). Forensic psychological expertise in the
wake of Daubert. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 121–140.
Grezlak, H. (1999, April 12). Profiling testimony inadmissible in murder
trial. The Pennsylvania Law Weekly, p. 3.
58 TORRES, BOCCACCINI, AND MILLER
Grubin, D. (1995, September). Offender profiling. The Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry, 6, 259 –263.
Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1998). Psychological aspects of crime
scene profiling: Validity research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25,
319 –343.
Honts, C. R., & Quick, B. D. (1995). The polygraph in 1995: Progress in
science and the law. North Dakota Law Review, 71, 987–1019.
Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector:
Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
426 – 433.
Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general
acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A sur-
vey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089 –1098.
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the
“general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of
the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405– 416.
Kocsis, R. N. (2003a). Criminal psychological profiling: Validities and
abilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 47, 126 –144.
Kocsis, R. N. (2003b). An empirical assessment of content in criminal
psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 47, 37– 46.
Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An
assessment of skills and accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31,
341–361.
Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002). Psychological
profiling of sexual murders: An empirical model. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 532–554.
Kocsis, R. N., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). Believing is seeing? Investigating the
perceived accuracy of criminal psychological profiles. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 149 –
160.
Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., Hayes, A. F., & Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in
psychological profiling: A comparative assessment. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 15, 311–331.
Pinizzotto, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profil-
ing. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32– 40.
Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An
outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215–233.
Ressler, R. K., & Burgess, A. W. (1985, August). Violent crime. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 1–32.
Risinger, D. M., & Loop, J. L. (2002). Three card monte, Monty Hall,
modus operandi, and “offender profiling”: Some lessons of modern
cognitive science for the law of evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 24,
193–285.
Rossmo, D. K. (1999). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Salfati, C. G. (2003). Offender interaction with victims in homicide: A
multidimensional analysis of frequencies in crime scene behaviors.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 490 –512.
Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders:
Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 17, 391– 406.
Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliot, M. N. (2002). Conducting research
surveys via e-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Snook, B., Canter, D., & Bennell, C. (2002). Predicting the home location
of serial offenders: A preliminary comparison of the accuracy of human
judges with a geographic profiling system. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 20, 109 –118.
Turvey, B. E. (2002). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral
analysis (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
United States v. Meeks, 35 M. J. 64 (CMA 1992).
Weinerman, L. (2004a). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth.
Monitor on Psychology, 35(7), 66 – 69.
Weinerman, L. (2004b). Does profiling really work? Monitor on Psychol-
ogy, 35(7), 67.
Wells, G. (2003). Murder, extramarital affairs, and the issue of probative
value. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 623– 628.
Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. (1997). Validity, utility and ethics of
profiling for serial violent and sexual offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology,
and Law, 4, 1–11.
Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M. (2005). Forensic psychology (2nd ed.).
Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
Received August 9, 2004
Revision received June 15, 2005
Accepted June 16, 2005 䡲